Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 tour of She Has a Name


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. Let's close this, if only for a very practical reason: I have never seen such a division in an AfD, of content contributors, FA writers and reviewers, and other experienced editors on both sides. There is no way in which this is going to close as anything but "no consensus", unless one throws a supervote into the mix. Having said that, a few more remarks. One SPI is brought up; a related one is Sockpuppet investigations/Cactusjackbangbang. Whether it matters that there are socking allegations or not (and I think Lukeno94 pointed this way) is another question. Allow me a remark or two, since I don't think I can get away with a supervote and a close as "delete", nor do I want to. I think the delete voters (those commenting on the coverage, that this is average sourcing, etc) have a point, and a rationale is found in WP:NTOUR. But this is an FA and that changes much: even if FA does not equal speedy keep (Fanny Imlay, anyone").. WP:FAR has been suggested as a possible venue, and I agree that a careful review of the article, its sourcing, and perhaps its FA status is a good first stop. If the community agrees, for instance, that the article is not an FA, then that will make for a more streamlined deletion discusison. In short, I'm closing this as No Consensus, without prejudice toward renonimation, and I thank you all for your input. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

2012 tour of She Has a Name

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A single tour of a regional dramatic production. It eludes me why this page should exist at all, as it appears to be promotional in bent. Nominated for deletion per WP:N and WP:NOT Cactusjackbangbang (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  19:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge into She Has a Name. The play is notable, but the tour is not independently notable. T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 21:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Likewise, there is another article, curated exclusively by the same editor as this one, on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_response_to_She_Has_a_Name. Said article is approximately double the length of the main article on Death of a Salesman...a clear promotional puff piece that violates Wikipedia's notability standards. The main article for She Has a Name already includes an arguably over-lengthy section on critical response; it makes no sense to add such a superfluous secondary article on a regional production other than SEO. Should the critical response page be nominated for deletion separately?Cactusjackbangbang (talk) 04:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge and delete as per above. Sometimes different venues/tours/casts can gain enough coverage to merit an article, but that does not mean that we need to have a separate article detailing this. Even the pretty widely covered Neil Patrick Harris performance/cast of Hedwig and the Angry Inch doesn't warrant its own article and I'd wager that it got just as much coverage, if not more than this tour did. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no need for a standalone article about this as a separate topic from the main article on the play itself — as Tokyogirl79 correctly notes, except maybe in very exceptional circumstances which this play doesn't meet, we don't normally do separate articles about each individual production tour of a play. Again, the creator of this has a tendency to overdo this topic — the play itself absolutely satisfies our inclusion standards, but it's not so uniquely notable that it requires a special profusion of spinoff content significantly greater than virtually any other play in the history of theatre has ever been given. Contents are already adequately summarized at She Has a Name with no need to merge anything else from here, so while redirect would be acceptable I'd actually prefer to just delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've long viewed the collection of articles on this topic with dissatisfaction. This one, in particular, is a dramatic example of undue weight. A regionally-performed fringe theater production, regardless of the poignancy of its topic or the handful of minor awards it managed to receive, simply does not warrant spin-off articles on tour years (doubly especially here, when there's not a significant history of the play's performance outside of this tour). Even for world-famous topics like The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical), the individual productions and tours do not warrant their own pages, and quite rightly so. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * With somewhat wider discussion here, I want to clarify my comments a bit. There are two reasons, in general, why subtopics get their own pages. First, if the core topic is too long, sections can be spun out to their own pages out of readability concerns. Second, if the subtopic is the subject of independent coverage such that it meets notability criteria on its own, then it warrants a page from first principles. When neither are true, we don't; that's part of what is implied by "notability is not inherited". Neither of these is true here. The core article is not too long to exist as a single topic—or, at least, would not be so if pared down appropriately. And the 2012 tour is not by any stretch of the imagination a separate topic from the play itself. Go ahead, look at the sources in the article. The reviews of the 2012 showings never talk about how these 2012 productions are somehow different from the (much more limited) 2011 productions. They are simply reviews of the play, written in the various (mostly local) newspapers where it was shown during that year.
 * This got through FA (with considerably difficulty, I'll note; it passed on the 3rd nomination, with what is not, historically-speaking, a well-attended discussion) because on its face, it's the sort of thing FAC encourages: exhaustively researched and with oodles of references. I know; I review at FAC when my schedule permits, and try my best to write for it as well. But FAC is poorly equipped to deal with structural questions such as should this article have existed in the first place. It's tooth fairy science. There's no separate topic here; there never was. Rather, this (and the critical reception article) are an effort to spread the topic of one small, mostly regionally-performed piece of fringe theater into a broader topic. A substantial amount of the content is duplicated between the three articles, as are a substantial number of the references, and for good reason: there should only be one topic here to begin with. Go read the parent article, and pretend there weren't "See also" links to its two subtopics whatsoever. There's nothing there that wants for comprehensiveness, nothing that should be merged in, even if some could be. And I'd be surprised if more than a handful of ultra-local references weren't already there as well. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. We have two or three articles by the same user on what is really a small local play, obviously serving as promotional fluff. I don't even think a merge is necessary. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, existing WP:FA quality article. Significant secondary source coverage over time. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I haven't read the article, so I'm not going to vote. This article is 12k of readable text; there are FAs that are less than half that length.  The She Has a Name article is 29kb of readable text; if the two were combined, there is likely significant overlap, so the resulting article would be significantly less that 29kb + 12kb = 41kb (background would be duplicated, and there would be a summary of the tour in the main article).  That's not long enough an article to require splitting.  The fact that it has been under the eyes of a group of FAC reviewers should not be taken lightly, but nor should it be taken as an irreversible judgement of God.  I'm imagining the articles could be merged with no information loss—whether it should I'll leave to others to decide. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:FA article; obviously passes notability. Should not be merged because of the independence of the subject matter, plus the length issues (including the numerous citations). This isn't merely a simple tour, it's an award-winning production with discussion panels, awareness-raising, awards, and so forth. Lastly, not sure what an editor who has been on Wikipedia exactly one day is doing nominating a Featured Article for deletion, plus nominating another article by the same editor for deletion, plus gutting another article created by the same editor. Seems like some sort of personal vendetta. Softlavender (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect, or Delete and redirect if merging adds too much detail - I'm sorry, but this being an FA article doesn't give it a free pass; not even remotely. I look at this article, I see things like Audiences reacted with deep emotion as the play toured.[63] Standing ovations were common.[64][65], and I wonder to myself; how on earth is this a featured article? My main feeling is that this article is not only overtly promotional, it also struggles to generate notability for the tour. All I'm seeing are tonnes and tonnes of reviews for the play, but how much commentary on the tour itself is there? The answer appears to be simple; not a great deal. Not only that, but I see a great degree of reference bombardment in here; let's just take one reference I looked at from the reviews section,, and it gives all of three sentences. Not once does it mention the show being on tour. And what is the reference linked to in the text? When Kooman's play was performed in the Montreal Fringe Festival alongside such other plays as The No Bullshit History of Canada and Fucking Stephen Harper: How I Sexually Assaulted the 22nd Prime Minister of Canada and Saved Democracy, the Montreal Gazette called She Has a Name a "well-crafted, issue-oriented play" that stood in contrast to the festival's "standup comedy, burlesque and navel-gazing solo shows". Exactly where does it say any of that? Answer; it doesn't. The quotation given doesn't exist in the article I'm looking at, and there's certainly not a smidgen of comparison between the shows. It's very rare that I question FA reviewers... but I am doing here. I wouldn't even see this as a GA regardless of the notability. So, to summarise; it's an overly fluffed-up article that never establishes the notability of the tour. I strongly suggest that anyone voting "Keep, it's an FA and has loads of refs so must be notable" actually reads the article, and checks out the refs. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 00:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If there are issues with the article itself, then perhaps it should go to WP:FAR first. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If notability wasn't a question, then yes, you're obviously correct. However, my !vote was showing anyone who !voted keep based on the number of references, and the fact it was an FA, that doing so was a bit daft. It also gives a general analysis of how little notability this tour has, and how several sources are misrepresented in blatant ways. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 13:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please actually read the sources and you'll see that they absolutely do not. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 09:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, all of those sources are telling me that, while at first glance seeming like too much, it's just right for the amount of coverage. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 00:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * All touring productions of all plays always generate at least this much coverage. This one is in no way special in that regard. Bearcat (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That could easily be an argument for aicles like this for all touring productins of all plays. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But a poor one. With vanishingly few exceptions (of which this article contains none), reviews, criticism, and commentary are not about the individual productions on their merits, but about the play itself. Even the most famous, most widely-performed modern stage performances such as Cats and Phantom of the Opera have never received that treatment (although their articles do list the various productions and discuss differences where relevant), because the different productions, in this context, are routine. That's most certainly true of regionally-performed Canadian fringe theater. It was performed in 2011. It was performed other places in 2012. All of that is part of the topic of the play, not a thing unto itself. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I was only pointing out the fallacy in the argument: WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Whether the article itself deserves to exist should be judged on its own merits. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete preferably or redirect at best, per, , , , and others. Likewise, should Andrew Kooman be a "good topic" with three articles on this one play, and a stub article on an "young-adult novel"? EChastain (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The volume of spinoff content about his works, regardless of whether it's warranted or excessive, has no bearing on whether his main BLP meets "good article" standards or not — so the quality assessments of that article are in no way affected by questions about whether this related but distinct spinoff article warrants inclusion or not. Bearcat (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Investigate The creator of this article Neelix, an editor with nine years experience and many articles to his name, retired a week ago stating he was 'the target of a very high level of trolling'. See also Sockpuppet investigations/Johnnydowns where he claims to be the 'subject of an attack'. It should be investigated if this AfD is not part of that alleged attack, certainly in light of the nominators editing record. It is a new account who started of last week by culling the content of another article which Neelix created (see 1, also note the preceding similar content culling by another newly created account Yaktaur). It has the hallmarks of sockpuppetry. --Wolbo (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think there's little doubt that the nominator is marginal at best; however, they do have an extremely valid point here. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 09:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect I read this article, and checked out some of the references. It's puffed up and has a taint of coatrack. &rarr; StaniStani 02:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Send to Featured article review . I am skeptical that this article should exist in the first place, as the tour should normally be covered only as part of the play's article; however, it doesn't seem appropriate to me for an article to go from featured article status to being deleted directly. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The purpose of FAR is to determine if an article no longer meets the FA criteria, not to determine if it should exist at all. If the consensus here is keep, the article is eligible to remain an FA. -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am changing my recommendation to Delete per Squeamish Ossifrage. However, if the article is kept, I think it should be sent to WP:FAR. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would absolutely agree with that. It's just way too promotional and bloated to be a FA, and I seriously doubt it's really a GA at this point. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect - the main article already has a 2012 tour section which adequately covers the encyclopedic information about the tour that is separate from the play. --DHeyward (talk) 09:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is something to be said about overforking. This could easily be just a section in the main article rather than its own thing. Doesn't show notability on its own - yes there's sources, but they're routine for a tour. Wizardman  13:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Passage through FAC is community consensus that the article is compliant with Wikipedia's standards, including notability. While notability is not explicitly referenced in WP:WIAFA, I believe that the requirement for high-quality reliable sources (which this has) plus the requirement that it remain focused on the main topic combine to almost inevitably satisfy WP:GNG.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep There is something suspicious going on. Putting aside for a moment the temptation to jump on the bandwagon and join others in condemning the notability of this article and the other related AfD article, I am suspicious of the motivations of the nominator, who appears to be a sockpuppet (possibly of 184.161.25.16; Yaktaur, and Johnnydowns) and who may have a vendetta against articles like this one and a few others improved by Neelix (an experienced and prolific editor and administrator who improved other featured articles on this topic and who apparently retired after enduring wikihounding). As for the notability of this article, I believe it is notable because a) I have actually read the article and see how it expands on the knowledge in the section of its main article, b) it is part of a featured/good topic, c) it is a featured article (after three tries) as recognized by other competent editors, and d) it is considered notable by the high number of external sources (I have spot checked them). Let us not cause an injustice against an undeserved article that was improved by a respected, now former, Wikipedian. Prhartcom (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I find it exceptionally hard to believe that you've read any of the references properly based on this !vote. Almost all of them talk solely about the show and not the tour. As multiple people have stated, it being an FA does not give it a free pass whatsoever, and sheer weight of references isn't valid either. Nor is any perceived "injustice" relevant. Yes, the nominator is dodgy, but the actual discussion is a valid one. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I respect your comment; you are right, many sources are solely about the show, however I did find many (ten or more) sources that verify the notability of the tour. FYI, I wish to say that I respect the editors who recognize this article as FA, that I myself am not interested in this featured/good topic, and that regarding Neelix, he and I have crossed swords before and so I am not a fanboy, but I do respect him and trust him as a scholar. I still believe the article can exist on its own and as part of a well-researched topic. I hope someone can investigate the motivations of the nominator. Prhartcom (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just checking in here as I see I've been mentioned on both of these articles as a possible sockpuppet. Hope you'll all disregard that. I'm just getting into editing here and have no goals on the site outside improving syntax and concision. Thanks. John Bailey Owen (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC) (aka Johnnydowns)
 * At least you've bothered to go beyond "Keep, it's an FA therefore it's fine" Prhartcom, which several people haven't. I strongly disagree with your interpretation here, but there we go. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - With regards to the nominator, no evidence of actual sockpuppetry was presented at that SPI, and it was indeed archived as such. I agree with many people that the nominator is suspicious (and have said so), but I don't think throwing around the "sock" allegation as a reason to keep this is helpful. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The archived SPI did not mention this nominator (or Yaktaur) and was closed because Neelix retired. I just want to make sure we do not allow a sockpuppet to abuse an AfD (and other activities) in order to wikihound an experienced and productive editor into retirement. For the record, I do not know Neelix and as far as I know have had no interactions with him.--Wolbo (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , per my comment on your talk page regarding this SPI, I also noted that Nellix has recently received warnings on his talk page for inappropriate admin actions, such as WP:INVOLVED, per violating Protection_policy on 4 January. See Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant and another on 6 January, see Pray tell where he blocked a newbie editor without warning. He was told about about WP:OWN and asked for an explanation for this edit to She Has a Name. He retired on 7 January, though maybe he is taking a wikibreak as suggested. So please don't be quick to blame sockpuppets.  EChastain (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - well writen ...all looks fine. -- Moxy (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Absolutely no way this merits a standalone article. Can't believe we're even discussing such a thing. Puffed up unnecesary spinoff from puffed up article. 2015 tour of Hamlet, anyone? Get a grip. Article created and massaged by user devoted to the play. Puff. Not a valid wikipedia article in any way, shape or form. Begoon &thinsp; talk  17:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - At worst — and I mean at very worst — this is over-the-top fanboy coverage of a more or less ordinary event in popular culture. This is pretty much descriptive of about half of the content of Wikipedia... It's actually a nice presentation of a regional theatre tour, a topic that passes GNG. That this article has been challenged is far more concerning to me than the fact that this article exists. Carrite (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete It is absurd to think that 2 whole spinoff articles are warranted for such a minor play, especially when all the content on this page is summarized in a relatively more reasonable/restrained manner on the main article for the play itself. Even a merge isn't necessary since the 3 pages repeat each other so much, there's tons of overlap and what doesn't overlap is overly verbose hype language. There's just no need for this; it would be excessive even when applied to all but the few most famous and extensively covered works of literature or theater in history, and it's even more so when applied to such a fringe play. This is a total puff piece created by an editor who seems to have a history of creating similarly puffed-up, promotional features for his favorite celebrities, causes, and pieces of entertainment. Arguing that other content on Wikipedia is fanboy-created puff seems like an argument to delete other similar articles, not a reason to keep this one.Wobzrem (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, the number of sources has been cited several times as evidence that the article should be kept, but keep in mind that most of the sources are very small local newspapers, and any regional production is likely to get similar amounts of coverage on that scale. We are not talking about widespread media coverage at a national or international level, or a larger cultural impact. We are talking about local newspapers covering what was likely the only theatrical production running in their various small towns at any given time - of course these tiny newspapers covered this play! Does this mean there should be an article for each yearly tour of every regional production of every play ever?Wobzrem (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, as per Softlavender. Well referenced, feature article.  Given its length and the length of the main article, appropriately split off from the main article.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Well-referenced featured article. Easily passes WP:GNG. "It eludes me why this page should exist at all" and "fanboy coverage of a more or less ordinary event" are no more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Arguments for deletion under WP:NOT like "Absolutely no way this merits a standalone article" are just WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. The sole criterion is WP:GNG. It passes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Likewise, a lot of keep voters have arguments like WP:ILIKEIT, WP:BIG, WP:LOTSOFSOURCES... troll elsewhere, please. It absolutely does not pass GNG; a thousand routine local sources wouldn't make it pass, let alone the handful that actually discuss the tour. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks will not advance your case. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I find it to be a fairly accurate assessment of your comment, so no, it isn't a personal attack. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete or merge any relevant bits to parent article. FA status does not relate to notability. I think Squeamish Ossifrage makes the most salient points about how this article gives undue weight to a marginal aspect of an otherwise notable topic. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 13:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Whatever we do, please 'do not merge. The She Has a Name article is already balanced. Merging further information from this one would just skew that. No need to destroy two articles. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm curious: what do you mean by "balanced"? I fail to see how merging would what essentially be a very small amount of information (when the overlap is discarded) would "destroy two articles". Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 17:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete or Merge Basically everything has been covered by users smarter than myself, but I wanted to add a few things. Basically the only arguments in its favor revolve entirely around the fact that it is well sourced. I agree that the sourcing is meticulous and clearly required lots of research and hard work. This isn't being debated, and I do understand the reluctance to delete an article that someone clearly put a lot of time and effort into. I was actually initially leaning towards "keep" on that basis alone when I stumbled onto this discussion. However, the issue is far more structural and concerns whether or not this article adds information necessary to understand the original article, or adds information that is deserving of its own article. As for the former, the original article is incredibly detailed and informative and conveys more than enough information to provide a reader with clear understanding of both the initial 2011 and later 2012 performances of the play. Anyone wishing to learn about "She Has a Name" will be able to walk away from the original article fully informed without leaving any major gaps in knowledge left open. As for the latter, is the article necessary on its own because it is a significant topic in its own right, this is largely self-evident and has been explained fairly well by others. The fact that the article largely repeats large sections of "She Has a Name" by itself refutes the argument that this subject is necessary or notable in a vacuum. It is highly unlikely that a reader would search for this article without first reading the original, and as discussed, the original covers the information sufficiently and thoroughly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdh9 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Not to keep beating a dead horse, but I think the major issue is that the level of detail is unnecessary as the initial article already covers the relevant information. Again, I am new to editing Wikipedia but I am kind of confused as to why most of the debate here seems to not be defending the content of the article in defending its existence but just the number of sources. It seems like the length and detail are just kind of being accepted on their face rather than being explored more deeply. Actually reading both articles back to back it seems like most of the information is repetitive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdh9 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep, straightforwardly meets the GNG. Anyone is welcome to restructure the articles as desired outside of this process, via talk page consensus, but given the size of the pages relative to each other this seems like a reasonable structure - this level of detail would be oppressive in the main article. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak delete or merge pretty much as per Bearcat above. There seems to me to be some good reason to think that we need to establish notability guidelines for specific performances of dramatic works which receive regular multiple performances, and I would think that from what I can see this would probably not pass them. I acknowledge the article, as it stands, is not bad, but at least borders on a form of theatrical fancruft. It would seem to me, perhaps, to make sense to have, if people wanted them, a separate article from the main article on a play or similar for the various outstanding performances of that play, but hopefully only one or two such for all performances. Otherwise, like others have mentioned above, we might have somewhere in the vicinity of several thousand articles on the various stage performances of Hamlet alone, and I cannot imagine that there is really that much encyclopedic material about even that topic, one of the most written about theatrical works ever, to merit such coverage. For performances which do receive significant enough non-local or non-regional coverage to establish general notability, however, like maybe the Richard Chamberlain Hallmark Hall of Fame version of Hamlet and other widely discussed versions, that would be different. John Carter (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.